Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kwork

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Kwork, has demonstrated over and over again that he does not understand core wikipedia polices, has no interest in learning them and is here at wikipedia for one purpose, to teach the world about Alice Bailey's alledged anti-semitism. Anyone who disagrees with his very clear POV is attacked, criticized or seem as part of a conspiracy.


[edit] Desired outcome

For Kwork to discuss and relate to other editors without focusing on their motives and discounting their input because of alleged non-neutrality.

For Kwork to really review the core polices of Wikipedia, especially around editing and writing on controversial topics.

For the Alice Bailey page to stop being a battleground, which, having watched it for 7 months now, happens mainly when Kwork participates.

To immediately stop all personal attacks and comments on users alleged motives for being here, other then filing WP:COI or WP:SOCK reports.

To stop using the talk page as a discussion board for Alice Bailey's alledged anti-semitism- which includes stopping posting to the page quotes from her book, that are not commented on by strong 2ndary sources in harmony with WP:PSTS.

And lastly, for Kwork to say, "Yes, I am willing and open to working within the guidelines and procedures of wikipedia" or to cease editing here.

For Kwork to enter into a formal wiki-mentorship or have an ongoing relationship with an admin.

[edit] Description

Kwork arrived at wikipedia with his first edit being a post to the Alice Bailey talk page with this post.


Since then he has done everything conceivable to make the page a place to discredit the teachings and ideas of Alice Bailey.

This has included: ~accusing EVERY poster who disagrees with his position of being as being non-neutral, in cohorts with each other, an "Alice Bailey" supporter etc. ~blanking the article page ~attempting to have the page deleted ~All sorts of personal attacks ~Litterally refusing to acknowledge or dialogue about wikipedia policy.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit] Lack of understanding of core policies

WP:NPOV [[1]] [[2]]

WP:PSTS, self-published sources [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] (along with a "threat" of deletion) [[6]]

WP:RS [[7]] [[8]] [[9]]

WP:V [[10]]

WP:NOR [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]]

[edit] Unwillingness to look at policy

Numerous time people have asked Kwork to review a policy or quoted a policy and asked Kwork to abide by it. Each times he brushes it off.

[[16]]

[[17]]

[[18]]

[edit] Extreme lack of WP:AGF/No understanding of WP:COI

Anyone who disagrees with Kwork is an Alice Bailey defender, in cahoots with others, "not neutral" or behaving "unethically."

For example, when an editor agreed with Kwork he said this [[19]] and this [[20]] and this [[21]]; later when she disagreed he attacked her [[22]]

Here are more examples: [[23]] [[24]] [[25]] [[26]] [[27]] [[28]] [[29]] [[30]] [[31]][[32]] [[33]][[34]]

Here he posted his whole conspiracy theory (i.e., editors who don't agree with him must be meatpuppets) on the talk page (and then continued to attack anyone he lumped in this group): [[35]]

[edit] WP:CIVILITY/WP:NPA

[[36]]

Thank Sethie for his input. Let me know if he has anything intelligent to say; or, perhaps, Sethie could contribute something to the article, rather than to the talk page. Kwork 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC) [[37]]

[[38]]

[[39]]

[[40]] (Neebish meaning "A weak-willed, timid, or ineffectual person")

[[41]]

[[42]]

[[43]]

[[44]]

[edit] WP:POINT/Bad faith edits

Kwork has demonstrated that when he doesn't get his way, he will disrupt the page


[[45]] [[46]] To retaliate for people asking for sources for his criticisms, he removed... the entire article. [[47]]

Here Kwork removed an entire section because I asked for citations, and later said I had "destroyed the section": [[48]]

[[49]]


Here Quark constantly says that the page lacks enough sources... and then he removes two of the few we have!: [[50]] [[51]]

Deletes bona fide references [52][53]


When we did not do as he wished, he attempted to nominate the page for deletion.... [[54]]

[edit] COI

[edit] Ex-Student of AAB

In many articles, it seems it is the "ex" members of groups that are the most vociferous critics and find it the most difficult to work with other editors to create a neutral article. Kwork appears to fall into this category of "ex's".

  1. ... On the other hand, I have ended all my

connections with the AAB teaching and its followers years ago.... Kwork 20:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. ...I have broken away from the AAB teaching

(which I now suspect is a hoax).... Kwork 13:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. ...As you know perfectly well, I was the personal

student of a person in the teaching who was second in importance only to Bailey herself, and I was his student for over five years... Kwork 14:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Misunderstanding of WP:COI

Kwork's understanding of WP:COI is that someone who is close to a set of teachings disqualifies one from editing per WP:COI

It is a question of "closeness" to the Alice Bailey teaching. That is a consideration. Kwork 22:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It does not have to be a personal relationship. "Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal." In this case the devotion to the Alice Bailey teaching would be called religious, and it is problematic. And it is not problematic just for Jamesd1, but virtually every editor of this article....including, perhaps, SqueakBox.Kwork 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Religion seems to be driving edits

Kwork says he is Jewish, and this seems to color his edits (makes him very emotional about what should or should not be in the article regarding antisemitism) [[55]] [[56]] [[57]] [[58]] [[59]] [[60]] [[61]] [[62]] [[63]] [[64]]


[edit] WP:SOAP

Here is Kwork's first entry on wikipedia [[65]]

[[66]]

After his additions which were full of OR and unsourced claims were toned done by Adhoc and Squeakbox, Kwork replied with this: [[67]]


[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:NPOV
  2. WP:AGF
  3. WP:RS
  4. WP:SOAP
  5. WP:PSTS
  6. WP:V
  7. WP:NPA


[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. On Kwork's talk page, I listed three or so core policies that I felt he was not following, and sought to engage him in dialogue. His response to this was to dismiss what I said and further engage in WP:NPA. He then had his talk page deleted. Sethie 18:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. RfC, which brought in two people: Bksimonb and Renee. As soon as they disagreed with Kwork he responded thusly: (Bksimonb: [[68]] [[69]], Reneehollee: [[70]])
  3. Here are some attampts to dialogue with him on his talk page, which he did not respond to, and erased [[71]] [[72]]
  4. Wikiquete alert [[73]]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Sethie 19:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Renee 14:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Repeatedly I have posted pleas for Kwork to read the Wiki guidelines and have tried to adequately reflect his concerns about antisemitism and others in a simple, neutral way. I don't think the "I'm new so don't know anything" argument flies here because if you look at the talk page, everyone's asking him to review the policies. If Kwork agrees to abide by the policies for a simple, balanced, neutral article, shows good-faith efforts of doing that (i.e., doesn't attack people who don't agree with him), then I'll withdraw support from this Rfc.
UPDATE: Back at square one. Continued canvassing against editors who don't hold the same view point. Continued assumption of bad faith despite one editor practically begging him for good faith. --Renee 16:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. I have had the same experience as Renee outlined above.James 15:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. I experienced Kwork suddenly assuming bad faith on me after responding to an article rfc as described in the above section. It just seemed a bit uncalled for. Bksimonb 12:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kwork thinks that the rules are only for the others, and do not apply to him. He deletes sourced text ([74], [75]), links ([76]) and the bibliography ([77]). His deletions are not valid according to Wikipedia guidelines. When I deleted the most unreliable sources, which were from self-published websites, (as explained on the talkpage [78]) he reverted it without a discussion on the talkpage [79]. --Voidocore 14:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. I think that Kwork trying to edit the Alice Bailey article contrary to the intentions of Sethie, Renee, Jamesd1, and Voidocore, conclusively proves that he does not know what he is doing, and he should be blocked from future editing of Wikipedia articles. Kwork 18:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

I believe that the above summary is biased, punitive and unjustified.

My initial involvement with the Alice Bailey page was simply that of an editor who remains anonymous by choice and who, being a Jewish person, was randomly checking biogaphies for fairness, balance, and neutrality of reportage in the handling of charges of racism that had been made by other authors against the biogaphy subjects. I decided to stay with the issue at the Alice Bailey page because it seemed to me that attempts to eliminate Kwork's edits -- and now Kwok himself! -- have been unfair, and that this attempt to ban him is grossly personal in nature.

Sethie has also initiated an AN/I report against me, which has resulted in my temporary blockage from editing the Alice Bailey page. I did not protest it, although it seemed grossly unfair, because there is a lot of other editing for me to do, and the block was only for 7 days.

It has been my experience that Sethie, who initiated this attempt to ban Kwork and who got me blocked from editing the Alice Bailey page, is himself guilty of deleting large portions of the Alice Bailey discussion page. It is my opinion that he is working Wikipedia's system of oversight in a political way, with punitive intentions.

It is my opinion that Kwork, unlike Sethie, has stated repeatedly that his interest is in working with others and developing consensus. Where he will not back down -- and where he has my support -- is in his insistence that the Alice Bailey biography should include criticisms by other authors who charge Bailey with racism in general and antisemitism in particular.

I think it is worthy to note also that, as evidenced on the discussion page, Kwork uncovered an apparent case of collusion in a Yahoo group devoted to the teachings of Alice Bailey in which an author and web publisher named Phillip Lindsey called for members of the pro-Bailey Yahoo group to come to Wikipdia to change the Ciriticsm section of the Alice Bailey page as it was, in his words, "off" because it dealt openly with charges of Bailey's antisemitism. It was shortly after this that the edit war broke out on the Bailey page.

As a general or "polymath" editor with wide-ranging interests, it has been my experience that such controversies frequently erupt among editors of the biographies of writers who have been charged with antisemitism and/or racism during their lives and after their deaths. The subtext of these controversies has been that the subjects' current followers are trying to remove from Wikipedia all charges of racism that have been made against their "gurus" by other published authors.

Antisemitism is a hot-button issue and it is obvious that there are strong issues in play here which go far beyond editing the Alice Bailey page.

I think that Kwork is being unfairly targeted due to his intention to include mentions of critical charges of antisemitism made by other authors in the Wikipedia biography of Alice Bailey.

I regret remaining anonymous, but for the present that is my desire, due to problems encountered in the past when my user name became identified with my legal name.

20:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. 20:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

The desired outcome describes penalties and subject bans. This is a request for comment, topic bans are not an appropriate outcome. I urge the filer to re-word the desired outcome to focus on the positive and not the punitive.

  • Resolved, thank you. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC) (author)

[edit] Outside view from Eaglizard

Although I am an editor involved in this effort, I am offering an Outside view because I do not support this RfC. While I understand that Sethie feels frustrated by Kwork's approach, I disagree that this has produced an impasse or even an actual edit-war at Alice Bailey. (I have been burned by a few real edit wars, and Talk: Alice Bailey is positively genteel by comparison.) I feel the article is in fine shape, and is (all things considered) progressing well.

I don't recall seeing any real discussion of a need for an RfC on the talk page there, and I imagine that is why no other editors have endorsed it, as of a day later. I hope Sethie won't consider this any kind of admonishment, and will keep trying to help us with this article, but I disagree with what he's done in this instance, and I'm ok with it being deleted tomorrow.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Eaglizard 13:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. --Parsifal Hello 19:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by AnonEMouse

Basically, endorse what Eaglizard writes, but I can add enough that this probably deserves a separate section. I knew nothing about Alice Bailey before being asked to give my 2 cents in a post on my talk page, presumably because I am a Wikipedia:Administrator member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. Ostensibly the conflict there was the Alice Bailey#Criticism section, was it sourced well enough. I came in, archived half the talk page, commented on the application of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, cleaned up references, and both "sides" seemed to accept my opinions as authoritative. They keep grumbling at each other, but the section is now mostly stable; there are still arguments over how to phrase individual sentences, but no real dispute over deleting the whole section wholesale.

The main problem is that everyone involved is a massive overwriter, and prefers writing fourteen paragraphs complaining about other editors everywhere in sight (the article talk page, my talk page, the administrator's noticeboard, this Rfc, other places) to actually coming to consensus. But it has been getting better, so we shouldn't be sanctioning now, just when it is. Please note that all (or at least most ... all of the ones I looked at) of the truly bad conduct diffs at the top of this Rfc are from May and June. The grumbling occasionally spills over onto my talk page, and I'll write here what I write there: focus on the actual text of the article, not the ulterior motives of other editors; and even in the article text keep a sense of proportion, remember that the exact phrasing of two sentences is not Wikipedia:The Most Important Thing Possible.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Eaglizard 10:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC) (Just got back from a Overwriters AnonEMouse meeting, so of course, I must endorse.... <smile>
  3. SqueakBox 19:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Addhoc 00:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. --Parsifal Hello 19:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Albion moonlight 05:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.